[dogscoff]

OK, samurai, I'm sorry I blew up in response to your statement (which could have been worded better, as you point out.)

In response to this:

I will even pay attention to it if you come from a country that had thousands of civilians murdered in an *unprovoked* attack by foreign nationals.

I would say this:
First, there were all kinds of nationalities in the WTC, including plenty of fellow Brits.

Second, the US has been all too keen to make the 9/11 attacks an international threat when it suits them. To suddenly shut out the rest of the world because it happened on US soil is pretty poor, imho.

Third, we have been putting up with terrorist attacks for a long long time. Ever heard of the IRA? France and Spain have their Basque seperatists... terrorism isn't new you know, and US doesn't have a monopoly on it.

Who is willing to say that he should be left in power? I'm not.

I'm not defending Saddam Hussein, and I'm not sure anyone else is. Even if you take out the pro-war lies and propaganda about him, that still leaves plenty of proof that he is unfit to be in charge of a country. I have acknowledged several times in this thread that I do think him a monster.

However I am still opposed to war because I think that it is being waged for the wrong reasons. Someone made a point earlier about choosing the lesser of two evils. In my opinion a maniacal corporate warmonger in control of history's largest ever military force is far scarier than a mustachioed monster at the head of a bankrupted dictatorship.

Oh, and South Korea is not a threat. Sure, they have a huge army, but who doesn't these days? (Apart from Iraq, I mean) It was only when they heard that George had them on the hit list that all that stuff with the nuclear power stations started happening. With all this talk defending nuclear deterrents in this thread, can you really blame them for building nukes?